Farmland preservation, economic utilitarianism, and the erosion of the agrarian ideal

15 Pages·2005·0.23 MB·English

AgricultureandHumanValues(2005)22:209–223 (cid:1)Springer2005
DOI10.1007/s10460-004-8281-1
Losing ground: Farmland preservation, economic utilitarianism,
and the erosion of the agrarian ideal
Matthew J. Mariola
Gaylord NelsonInstitute for EnvironmentalStudies,University ofWisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Accepted in revised form September15, 2003
Abstract. The trajectory of the public discourse on agriculture in the twentieth century presents an interesting pat-
tern: shortly after World War II, the manner in which farming and farmers were discussed underwent a profound
shift. This rhetorical change is revealed by comparing the current debate on farmland preservation with a tradition
of agricultural discourse that came before, known as ‘‘agrarianism.’’ While agrarian writers conceived of farming
as a rewarding life, a public good, and a source of moral virtue, current writers on farmland preservation speak of
farming almost entirely in utilitarian terms describing its productive capacity and its economic returns. Proponents
of farmland preservation use essentially the same underlying framework as critics of preservation: an ‘‘economic
utilitarian’’ paradigm that purports to eschew normative values and evaluate land use decisions based on economic
criteria only. I argue that, despite their good intentions, farmland preservationists are doomed to piecemeal victories
at best, because their arguments, which rely on a utilitarian justification and disregard the agrarian ethic, are inade-
quate. Without expanding its focus beyond farmland to encompass farming and farmers, the movement risks losing
both integrity and effectiveness.
Key words: Agrarianism, Agricultural ethics, American Farmland Trust, Economic utilitarianism, Farmland preser-
vation, New agrarians, Urban sprawl
Abbreviations: AFT – American Farmland Trust; USDA – United States Department of Agriculture
Matthew J. Mariola recently received his Masters degree in the Land Resources program at the Gaylord Nelson
Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research focuses on agrarian philosophy
and farmer identity among conventional and organic farmers.
Theerrorsofpoliticiansignorantofagriculture…canonlyrobitofitspleasures,
andconsignittocontemptandmisery.
–JohnTaylor,1813
Introduction logue on agriculture. In fact, if one examines the
trajectory of the public debate over agricultural policy
Agriculture has been an activity of central significance through the course of the last one hundred years, one
to virtually every settled society the world has known. noticesastarkexampleofsuchashift:theveryparame-
Even in the United States, where farmers have com- ters of the debate change quite profoundly around mid-
prised less than half the population for over a century, century. In the decades preceding World War II, agricul-
and less than 3% several decades ago, the working ture was rendered in grandiose terms as a foundational
farmstead set in a bucolic rural landscape continues to element of American culture and democracy and an
hold a special place in most people’s hearts. Indeed, explicitly virtuous activity. It was seen not as an occu-
public discourse on the value of agriculture stretches pation so much as an all-encompassing lifestyle whose
back to our country’s founding and has hardly let up purpose was sustaining families and communities in
even as its subject has played a decreasing role in the addition to fields and pastures. This point of view, taken
national economy. generally, defines the stance known as ‘‘agrarianism.’’
Culture and agriculture are dynamic and interrelated After the 1940s, however, agriculture was looked on
phenomena. Transitions in the makeup and mores of a increasingly as a business venture, a means of produc-
society are closely interconnected with shifts in agricul- tion reducible to basic inputs and outputs and whose
tural practice, which in turn relate to shifts in the dia- sole purpose was raising food. Through this more recent
210 Matthew J. Mariola
lens, agriculture exists simply to satisfy the alimentary creation in 1980 of the American Farmland Trust (AFT),
needs of a largely non-agricultural population. The agri- a national non-profit organization dedicated to the cause.
cultural discourse thus shifted from one dominated by Today, the idea of preserving farmland has been widely
agrarianism to one dominated by the putatively less accepted by the public and has resulted in a number of
biased viewpointof ‘‘economicutilitarianism.’’ successes at the national level, most notably the inclu-
The repercussions of this shift are especially interest- sion of a subsidized farmland protection program in the
ing as they play out in populist agricultural causes, last two congressional Farm Bills (Economic Research
such as the defense of family farms or the push for Service, n.d.).
value-added agriculture. Advocates for such initiatives When members of the farmland preservation move-
can still claim as an asset the mythical hold farming ment write and speak, they generally do so in order to
has on the public conscience, although that hold has convince citizens and politicians to support preservation
diminished considerably since mid-century. Increas- measures. The task they are charged with is to lay out
ingly, the platform required to resonate in the realm of the argument for preservation in such a way as to con-
public discourse must consist of economically quantifi- vince the wider public that it is a social imperative –
able arguments. In the following paper, I will explore not a special interest perk or an abstract academic phi-
this thematic shift through an examination of one of losophy, but a necessary act that will stave off future
the preeminent public debates on agriculture today: the harm to society. They must play upon both the ways in
farmland preservation movement. I will begin by laying which agriculture matters to a largely non-agricultural
out the chief arguments made by both preservation pro- public and the general style of argument that resonates
ponents and opponents, which together provide an the most with Americans. The reasons put forth by the
insightful picture of the way in which farming is cur- AFT and others to protect farmland can be broken into
rently perceived and valued. I will then outline the three main categories: ensuring the ongoing production
chief tenets of the ‘‘agrarian’’ worldview, which was of food and fiber; helping rural economies and commu-
the dominant mode of looking at agriculture prior to nities survive; and stemming urban sprawl.
1940, and which still claims a small number of sup-
porters today. The contrast between the two themes will Ensure continued production of food and fiber
then inform a discussion of the role of ethics in agricul-
tural discourse and why the agrarian point of view – Nearly every tract on farmland preservation begins with
now a distinct minority among agricultural voices – is the assertion that farmland must be preserved quite
still relevant to the farmland preservation movement. simply so that it can continue to produce agricultural
products. American agriculture is the envy of the world
and, in many respects, the feeder of the world also.
The argument for farmland preservation The statistics are well-known to most. The average
American farmer feeds 51 individuals worldwide. US
Declining interest rates and booming exports made the farmers produce half of the world’s grain exports. Glo-
mid-1970s a time of optimism and financial windfall bal population is predicted to grow by 50% in the next
for American farmers, but the decade also brought a half century and global food demand by 70%. Every
new kind of agricultural crisis: the accelerated loss of acre paved over is an acre less to supply that need
productive cropland to urban expansion and other non- (Olson and Olson, 1999).
agricultural uses. Starting in the late 1960s, urban pop- The argument for maintaining agricultural productiv-
ulations began flocking back to the countryside in ever ity provides the movement’s most alarming statistics.
greater numbers. Housing subdivisions and commercial According to the AFT, every minute of every day we
shopping centers proliferated on what had only recently lose two acres of farmland to non-agricultural uses
been prime farmland. The USDA’s Soil Conservation and the trend is only getting worse – during the
Service published a Potential Cropland Study in 1977 1990s we lost farmland at a rate 51% greater than
that confirmed many peoples’suspicions: between 1967 that of the 1980s. Such changes are not confined to
and 1975, rural land in the USA had been converted to select areas of the country, as every state is losing
urban use at a rate three times that of the historical valuable farmland (AFT, 2002a). Simply consider the
norm (Dideriksen, Hidlebaugh and Schmude, 1977). following analogy: ‘‘Throughout the past decade, an
Beginning in 1975 with a ‘‘Seminar on Prime Lands’’ area the size of the states of Vermont, New Hamp-
sponsored by the USDA, a systematic argument for shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
preserving farmland was laid out by various members Jersey, and Delaware combined has been converted
of the government, non-profit organizations, and acade- into new housing developments, industrial complexes,
mia. What began as a congressional initiative soon shopping centers, highways, water reservoirs, and
burgeoned into a nationwide movement, including the other uses’’ (Steiner and Theilacker, 1984: xv). There
Agrarian ideal – farmland preservation, utilitarianism and erosion 211
is a cropland buffer at present in the United States economic considerations appear to outweigh all other
due to several million acres being held in conservation criteria for defending farmland preservation.
reserve. With predicted increases in food demand, The other side of the ‘‘community’’ coin is harder to
however, this surplus land could disappear by 2020 define and is usually only hinted at. The AFT puts it
(Olson and Olson, 1999: 35). like this: ‘‘Sometimes the most important qualities are
Two other elements further exacerbate the problem the hardest to quantify – such as local heritage and
of losing productive capacity. First, conversion from sense of place …. Farms and ranches create identifiable
agricultural use occurs disproportionately on the high- and unique community character and add to the quality
est quality farmland. The best croplands exhibit the of life’’ (2002b: 3). Several elements are wrapped up in
same qualities most prized for residential development this argument. There is the idea that farming is condu-
– flat topography and well-drained, fertile soil. The cive to family values and land stewardship: ‘‘Although
rate of conversion for prime land was 30% faster than they are entrepreneurs, most farmers and ranchers work
the rate for lesser land between 1992 and 1997 (AFT, the land because they love it. They are as motivated by
2002a), and the percent of high-quality soils converted family, faith and feeling as they are compelled to make
to urban uses was twice that of low- and moderate- a profit’’ (AFT, 1997: 14). There is the sentimental
quality soils (Peterson et al., 1997). Second, land lost attachment to the farmscape as an essential part of
to urban uses is lost from farming forever. Commer- America’s heritage. There is, also, the aesthetic quality
cial strips and subdivisions do not yield bumper crops. of farmland as inherent open space, a natural respite
Interestingly, some critics of preservation refute this from the oppressive rhythms of urban life.
point and insist that the process is not irreversible On each of these individual points, however, the lit-
(e.g., Fischel, 1984). Nevertheless, it seems a fairly erature is surprisingly sparse. They are mentioned from
intuitive notion to preservationists. Olson laments the time to time but never pointedly emphasized. Advanc-
situation thus: ing an argument for ‘‘quality of life’’ exposes a fine
Development forecloses any options for agriculture line between preservation for farming’s sake and pres-
on a particular piece of land; if you grew up on a ervation for the benefit of non-farmers. The question
vegetable farm in western Long Island or a produc- could be posed: whose quality of life is being
tive orchard in the Santa Clara Valley (or any of a improved? Consider the statement of a preservation
hundred other urban fringe areas) during the 1940s or proponent from Michigan: ‘‘Folks like to leave the hus-
1950s, you literally can’tgo home again (1999: 2). tle and bustle of the city and visit the wide open coun-
tryside. Psychologically, green space and farmland are
Protect rural economies and communities an important piece of the lifestyle that west Michigan
has to offer’’ (Guy, 2002). Or the director of the Puget
Agriculture serves as the base of many rural econo- Sound Farm Trust: ‘‘We’re losing all the qualities that
mies, and keeping the land in farming maintains this make this such a great part of the country to live in’’
economic foundation. In addition to the more obvious (Baker, 2000: 32). Is the purpose of farmland preserva-
income derived from farmers buying equipment and tion to preserve farming or to create ‘‘a great place to
seeds and selling produce, land retained in farming live’’? A regional director for the AFT admits that the
protects municipal coffers from being emptied to pro- newest generation of preservationists is less concerned
vide basic services such as sewage and water lines to with saving land for the sake of the farms and more
residential subdivisions. A number of studies have with nipping the disagreeable trend of urban expansion
demonstrated that residential developments cost munici- in the bud (D. Caneff, personal communication). As we
palities more than the tax revenues they generate, while will see shortly, such statements will prove problematic
farmland and open space cost only a fraction of their when subjected to critical scrutiny.
respective tax revenues (AFT, 1986; Tibbets, 1998: 7).
The most comprehensive recent guide to saving farm- Slow urban sprawl
land advances this argument emphatically in an entire
chapter devoted to ‘‘making the case for farmland pro- It is no coincidence that the surge in concern over dis-
tection.’’ The subheadings in the chapter indicate that appearing farmland began in the mid-1970s. In 1975, a
protecting farmland is ‘‘good fiscal policy … good eco- government demographer announced that for the first
nomic development policy … promotes a diverse local time in one hundred years, transportation networks and
economy … [and] will minimize conflicts with non decentralized industry had reversed a trend centuries in
farm neighbors’’ (Daniels and Bowers, 1997: 15–19). the making: population migration was greater out of
The economic side of rural farming communities is the cities than into them. Of course, citizens were not
clearly of critical importance. Indeed, given their con- moving back onto farms but into low-density housing
nection to the productivity arguments outlined above, divisions, creating a new kind of growth called
212 Matthew J. Mariola
‘‘buckshot urbanization’’ (Lehman, 1995: 95–96). This Jacobs, 1995; Sutton, 1999) – the literature does not
decentralized pattern of development was the primary overtly address any overriding moral issues intertwined
cause of farmland conversion and, though rarely with farming and farmland use. A recent, comprehen-
acknowledged as such, underlying the call for preserv- sive handbook on farmland protection embodies this
ing farmland has been an emotional attack on urban norm. In an entire chapter devoted to the justification
sprawl. for preservation, the closest the authors get to an ethical
In many cases it only emerges as an aide to illustrate assertion is that ‘‘besides benefiting the community,
another point. For example, to demonstrate that farm- protecting farmland benefits farmers’’ (Daniels and
land conversion is getting worse instead of better, it is Bowers, 1997: 18).
helpful to show that urban sprawl is becoming all the Of course, it would be misleading to claim that farm-
more culpable. In the period 1982–1997, while the land preservation arguments are devoid of an ethical
U.S. population grew by 17%, urbanized land almost underpinning; no normative argument can exempt itself
doubled, as did acreage per person for new housing from moral discourse. Rather, the question is: What is
(AFT, 2002a). Developed land per capita rose from the underlying and unstated ethical framework that bul-
0.34 acresin1982to0.6 acresin1992(OlsonandOlson, warks the preservationist cause? Consider the following
1999: 25). While new housing lots of the past were statement from the final section of the AFT’s 2002 fact-
usually in the 1–10 acre range, lots of 10–22 acres sheet entitled ‘‘Why Save Farmland?’’: ‘‘Farms and
have accounted for 55% of new housing since 1994 ranches create identifiable and unique community char-
(HeimlickandAnderson,2001:14). acter and add to the quality of life’’ (AFT, 2002b: 3).
Sprawl is similarly implicated in the results of a At first glance, it seems a typical example of preserva-
number of studies that point to the government’s role tionist rhetoric, drawing on both public sentiment for
in subsidizing horizontal urban growth. Municipal gov- family farms and the loss of community cohesiveness
ernments fund the building of transportation corridors in rural America. Upon closer inspection, though, one
from city centers to ‘‘exurbs’’ and control taxes and notices that the recipient of this ‘‘quality of life’’ is left
other fees which contribute to stark differences in land unspecified. Presumably, then, the continued existence
prices (Bergstrom et al., 1999). Farmland preservation of farms and ranches adds to everyone’s quality of life.
is also mentioned in most popular magazine articles Farmland preservation thus joins the majority of agri-
about urban sprawl (e.g., Baker, 2001; Montaigne, cultural literature from the second half of the twentieth
2000). As seen, though, it is a topic usually only men- century in relying on what Tweeten (1987: 246)
tioned tangentially, as in the AFT’s veiled and muted endorses as ‘‘perhaps the most widely shared ethical
criticism that the phenomenon of thousands of city system in America’’: the long-entrenched tradition of
dwellers seeking serenity in the countryside ‘‘begins a utilitarianism.1 The notion of ‘‘the greatest good for the
process of re-creating urban problems in the country’’ greatest number’’ is implied throughout preservationist
(1997: 4). In fact, as I will soon describe, the seeming literature. Producing an adequate food supply is good
covertness of the anti-sprawl agenda becomes grounds for everyone who eats. Protecting rural economies is
for one of the chief arguments against farmland good for rural and urban dwellers alike. In short, soci-
preservation. ety benefits when there is more agricultural land
around, and the loss of productive farmland is a collec-
Utilitarian rationale and the missing (land) ethic tive loss for society – that is to say, for the majority of
citizens.
Farmland preservation as a movement is inherently But calling preservationist arguments ‘‘utilitarian’’
linked with the larger cause of environmentalism, at still does not answer the question of why ethical issues
least to the degree that both strive to conserve undevel- are not discussed more overtly in the preservation liter-
oped open space and farms are seen as (at least poten- ature. After all, the school of environmentalism has
tial) allies in preserving biodiversity, riparian buffers, utilitarian ends as well (environmental protection bene-
bird habitats, etc. There is a large and respected body fits everyone, not just environmentalists). Yet discus-
of literature on environmental ethics. It seems strange, sions of ethics are nowhere as rare in environmental
then, that the preservationist literature should be so literature as they are in farmland preservation tracts. In
devoid of a counterpart. Of course when the AFT considering this conundrum, Olson implicates the
points to the maintenance of ‘‘quality of life’’ or a nation’s overall economic system: ‘‘As Americans
‘‘shared heritage’’ (albeit as the fourth of its four rea- observe what is happening around them to farmland …
sons to preserve), there is some implication of a con- their conclusions as to the rightness or wrongness of
nection to human ethics. Yet save for a handful of these events are often based on each event’s conformity
articles spread out over more than two decades – and to the principles of capitalism’’ (1999: 10). Here we
all of them emanating from academia (Sampson, 1979; begin to glimpse the ways in which the agricultural
Agrarian ideal – farmland preservation, utilitarianism and erosion 213
dialogue has shifted during the past century. An explicit issue is ‘‘widely misunderstood and exaggerated’’ and
moral stance is not to be found in preservationist litera- refers to the public sentiment it stirs up as ‘‘hysteria’’
ture because preservationists, in keeping with the pre- (1984a: vii). Gardner (1984) points to the obvious truth
vailing mode of discussing agricultural problems, have that urban lands have always been located near the best
embedded their cause in economic arguments, or what farmlands, and thus for millennia the first land to fall
might more accurately be called ‘‘economic utilitarian- to urban expansion has been prime cropland. Further-
ism.’’ This fact requires further elaboration, and we will more, we cannot expect farmland to remain farmland
be aided in the process by examining the arguments of for eternity, especially in a country where farming con-
a set of writers who embrace the economic utilitarian tinues to decline in economic importance: ‘‘Economic
point of view unabashedly: the small but vocal group problems are always rooted in change, and in a
of farmland preservation critics. dynamic economy, any pattern of land use will eventu-
ally become obsolete’’ (Pasour, 1984: 105).
The brunt of this type of criticism is directed at the
The argument against farmland preservation statistics that inform the crisis in the first place.
Between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, several
It may come as a surprise to some to find that there is different national cropland surveys were carried out,
such a thing as an argument against farmland preserva- often using different protocols for ranking rural and
tion. The issue of farmland loss is by now painted in urban land. The figure of three million acres of farm-
such vivid colors in the popular media that few would land lost per year that emerged from the 1977 Potential
question the severity of the problem or the need for a Cropland Study was used as the rallying cry for the
solution. It seems entirely intuitive to want to protect initial push for preservation (Dideriksen et al., 1977).
farmland, yet from the moment of its inception farm- In 1979, a more comprehensive and in-depth survey
land preservation has faced criticism from both political was ordered to mitigate the barrage of criticism that
and academic arenas. Apart from letters to the editor greeted the 1977 study. Yet the criticism continued.
by property rights advocates in many local newspapers, Fischel claims that the methods used to calculate
the literature of the anti-preservation camp has been urban land figures in the 1970s surveys were more
mostly confined to a few edited volumes (see especially inclusive than those used in the prior decade, thus
Crosson, 1982a; Baden, 1984a). The critics are almost skewing all farmland conversion data in an upward
exclusively economists, and their arguments embody direction (1984: 81). Simon calls the three-million fig-
the ‘‘economic utilitarian’’ paradigm. Stemming from ure the product of ‘‘eco-freaks’’ (1982: 40), and con-
the fundamental premise of neoclassical theory that cludes that methodological difficulties make it
economics is amoral, this viewpoint holds that eco- essentially ‘‘impossible to determine how rapidly land
nomic factors should be the predominant consideration in the United States is being converted from cropland
in determining the use or value ascribed to a particular and other agricultural purposes to urban and built-up
commodity. In other words, it eschews explicitly biased areas’’ (1984: 70). Even projecting decades into the
statements and enacts a guise of value neutrality. As future, these scholars conclude that ‘‘neither soil
Gould and Kolb write, the discipline of economics ‘‘is erosion nor conversion to nonagricultural uses, nor the
sometimes called a utilitarian science … because it is two in combination, [will] pose a serious threat to the
not thought [to be the role of] economists to pass judg- future supply of agricultural land’’ (Crosson, 1984: 8).
ments on men’s wants. As economists, they are sup- Baden insists that public fears over farmland loss are
posed to consider only what men’s wants are and how simply the result of ‘‘windshield empiricism’’ – we see
they can be satisfied at the least cost’’ (1964: 740). urban sprawl occurring here and there and falsely
This claim to value neutrality is highly problematic conclude that it is ubiquitous and happening on a
from a postmodern point of view. Numerous scholars tremendous scale (1984b: 145).
have attacked it on the grounds that it itself represents
a deeply-rooted, foundational ‘‘bias’’ and reflects a Technology is a substitute for land
particular view of human nature. Nevertheless, it is a
principle that informs every theme winding its way The analysis goes beyond the simple notion that land
through the anti-farmland preservation literature. remains abundant. As is typical of an outlook grounded
in neoclassical notions of progress, there is the firm
There is no farmland crisis belief in the ability of technology to mitigate the diffi-
culties imposed upon us by natural scarcity. That is, the
Virtually every volume attacking preservation measures issue of land scarcity is a moot point, because, as the
begins with an article denying the severity of the farm- history of American agriculture has shown, there are
land loss ‘‘crisis.’’ Baden, for example, says that the other inputs into the production equation besides land.
214 Matthew J. Mariola
Specifically, technology in the form of mechanized According to this argument, preservationists are more
machinery, large-scale irrigation, and various petro- interested in selfish victories over an urban landscape
chemicals raises productivity without requiring any they detest than in the continuation of farming per se.
additional acres of land. Technology is literally a ‘‘sub- Not content with mere conservation of rural land
stitute for land’’ (Crosson, 1984: 4). resources, they want control of those resources. Echo-
Given yield statistics over the past century, such ing McClaughry’s (1976) provocative argument about
assertions are impossible to deny in the technical sense. the inefficient and domineering character of govern-
The 316 million tons of grain produced on 162 million mental land regulation, Meiners and Yandle (2001) call
acres in the U.S. in 1979 would have required 509 mil- the rise of farmland trusts which hold development
lion acres using the labor-intensive practices from 1910. rights in perpetuity ‘‘a return to feudalism.’’ Agriculture
The 7.6 billion bushels of corn produced on 69 million is important not for its salubrious effects on society or
acres in 1979 would have required 272 million acres of its maintenance of rural communities, but because it is
land in 1910; hay acreage would have had to increase a de facto guarantor of open space, and in keeping with
from 60.9 million to 130 million acres and cotton from the image many Americans already have of the envi-
13 million to 40 million acres (Heady, 1982: 30–31). ronmental movement, farmland protection is a way for
EarlyMalthusian skeptics must now admit that ‘‘there is preservationists to have their cake without paying for it
no fixed relationship between land and output’’ (ibid: themselves. As Beattie writes, ‘‘It is easier to convince
197). Continuing in this vein, of course, the newest others – notably nonlocal taxpayers and their political
addition to the technological arsenal is biotechnology, representatives – to foot the bill by wrapping open-
and Gordon and Richardson perfectly capture the opti- space and antidevelopment motivations in agricultural-
mism it has engendered: ‘‘The future of biotech and capacity clothing’’ (2001: 18–19).
superior crops and larger harvests will only make things
better. The demand for croplands will continue to fall’’ Farming measured in economic terms only
(1998).
A reliance on technology rather than land as a means While preservationists attempt to elevate farmland to a
of ensuring the viability of farming underscores a kind of mythical status, their opponents work to demys-
notion central to the anti-preservation argument – the tify it. Clawson notes, ‘‘Preservation of prime land is
‘‘farm problem’’ is little more than a production prob- important, but so is the preservation of land prime for
lem. If we achieve a crop yield sufficient to feed the other uses. Agricultural land use must be viewed in a
populace and continue to do so indefinitely, then agri- wider context than agriculture alone’’ (1979: 121).
culture has accomplished its mission. Issues of urban Baden is less circumspect. He skewers the idea of pre-
sprawl or the loss of family farms are irrelevant. serving land ‘‘in perpetuity,’’ with its attendant insinua-
tionthatland hasagreater valueasfarmland thanitwill
Anti-development in preservationist clothing ever have in another use, stating that ‘‘it is difficult to
imagine a more extreme, myopic view’’ (1984b: 152).
If there is no crisis of farmland loss, and if technology Even members of the farming community are not
can substitute for the little bit of land that is being immune to this sentiment. As a lobbyist for the Farm
paved over, then why are preservationists up in arms? Bureau put it in 1980, ‘‘There’s nothing magic about
Critics of preservation continue with their argument by any one patch of ground’’ (Peirce and Hatch, 1980:
attacking the supposed motivations of preservationists 1359).
themselves. Crosson, for example, questions why some The lobbyist’s statement perfectly captures the tenor
of the strongest support for protecting farmland comes of the anti-preservation argument. If farmland is only
from states which no longer comprise a significant as good as its yield, then it has no meta-economic
component of the agricultural economy, citing New qualities. There is no ‘‘land ethic,’’ there is just land.
York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Oregon as examples, As pointed out before, contained within the preserva-
and then plainly answers his own question: ‘‘[S]ome of tionist argument is at least the recognition, however
those ostensibly concerned with the adequacy of land faint, that land might have a value that cannot be cap-
as a factor of agricultural production are really con- tured in economic terms. An interesting manifestation
cerned about it as a source of amenity values, such as of the economists’ counterargument, though, is that
open spaces’’ (1982b: 4). It is a theme repeated by when they themselves summarize the preservationist
critic after critic – farmland preservation is merely win- position for the sake of clarity, even this slight hint of
dow dressing for a more underhanded cause. ‘‘The real a meta-economic value is gone. Gardner, who is wary
beneficiaries and the real force behind the movement of preservation, lists four ostensible reasons for saving
for farmland preservation are local antidevelopment farmland, but his reasons differ from the ones
interests’’ (Fischel, 1984: 93). advanced by the AFT: (1) ensure the supply of suffi-
Agrarian ideal – farmland preservation, utilitarianism and erosion 215
cient food and fiber; (2) maintain the local agricultural Agrarianism
economy; (3) control urban sprawl; (4) provide open
space and associated amenities, primarily for the bene- The carefully-worded, economics-oriented debate just
fit of urban dwellers (1984). Gone is the AFT’s ‘‘qual- outlined stands in contrast to a substantial body of liter-
ity of life,’’ except as an implied benefit for those who ature on agriculture that spans several centuries
live in the city. (indeed, millennia) and is typically lumped under the
This perspective should surprise no one; a fundamen- term ‘‘agrarianism.’’ Agrarian works long predate the
tal characteristic of economics as a discipline, after all, reign of economics in public discourse. Those from
is its amoral stance. Pastures and parking lots are not what is considered the ‘‘golden age’’ of agrarian litera-
compared using aesthetic or ethical criteria, but on a ture – roughly the first third of the twentieth century –
cost–benefit basis only. The demands of the market- fairly leap off the page with hyperbole and grandiose
place, not principles such as equity or stewardship, sentiments. Agrarian philosophy proves instructive to
have the final say: ‘‘It would be hard to make a case the debate on farmland preservation because it delves
that land is more valuable in agriculture than in urban well beyond economic reasoning. Agrarians are not so
uses when the market denies it several times over’’ much concerned with the services that farmers (or
(Brubaker, 1982: 218). The dispassionate rendering of farmland) offer society, but with the continuation of
a farmer’s decision to sell is a perfect example of how farming for its own sake. Certainly farmers provide
this view functions: food as well as a handful of crucial traits to the repub-
If the park owner is able to buy the acreage from the lic – for example, a spirit of independence that forms
farmer, both parties agree with the park owner’s the- the backbone of our democratic society – but these are
sis that the amusement park is the more valuable use the fortunate gifts that a robust agricultural sector inher-
of those 20 acres. Similarly, should the park owner ently gives, rather than the de facto reasons for agricul-
be unable to buy those acres, the park owner would ture’s existence.
agree with the farmer’s thesis that dairy farming was Most readers are likely familiar with at least the term
the more valuable use of that land (Wagner, ‘‘agrarianism,’’ but there may remain much confusion
2001: 59). about what the word actually signifies – and with good
There is simply no recognition that land may have any reason. The ‘‘agrarian idea’’ has been around for as
value other than the money that changes hands upon its long as people have written about agriculture, yet
purchase. The land is more ‘‘valuable’’ as a farm for scholarly works on the subject have been few. What
the sole reason that the developer cannot afford to turn follows is not meant as a full history or analysis of
it into a park. agrarianism, for the concept is far too historically
Others are even more direct. Note the language at rooted and nuanced to be covered in a few paragraphs.
the end of this statement by Fischel: ‘‘If a farmer sus- Rather, I will concern myself with what I see as the
pects that he will be selling his land to a developer idea’s most fundamental tenets, particularly as they
soon and if the developer is not interested in the barn relate to the current farmland preservation debate.
or the fertility of the soil, it is a net loss to both the
farmer and society to continue to maintain them’’ What is agrarianism?
(1984: 91). The few arguments put forth by the AFT
and others about farming’s contribution to the rural Agrarianism is ineluctably coupled with agriculture. Its
way of life have been turned on their head. It is not locus is in the countryside, but location alone is not a
society’s loss that farmland is disappearing, but rather sufficient criterion; the agrarian life is the farming life.
that the preemptive actions of a preservation committee Beyond this fundamental relationship, however, the his-
should cause it not to disappear. A final quotation torian of agrarian thought faces a formidable problem
drives the point home. Luttrell writes, ‘‘When the value in the variety of ideas that fall into the category of
of land that is converted to urban use exceeds the value agrarianism. The modern conception of agrarianism
that is obtained from farming, the farm owner, the land owes a good deal of its inspiration to a scant few para-
developer, and the general public will profit from con- graphs in the voluminous writings of Thomas Jefferson,
version’’ (emphasis added; 1984: 41). The juggernaut including these famous lines: ‘‘Cultivators of the earth
of progress assigns land to higher and better uses from are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigor-
which all of society benefits. The economists have ous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they
achieved a rather remarkable feat. They use the same are tied to their country … by the most lasting bonds’’
utilitarian framework employed by preservationists, and (McEwan, 1991: viii). However, as some scholars have
in spite of their insistence on moral objectivity, they recently pointed out, Jefferson’s version of agrarianism
have attached a sense of moral duty to the process of has held a disproportionate sway over the public’s
farmland conversion itself. imagination (Thompson, 2000).
216 Matthew J. Mariola
Inge (1969), in his exhaustive compilation of Ameri- employer’’ (cited in McEwan, 1991: vii). By the early
can agrarian literature, differentiates among five differ- decades of the twentieth century, however, writers such
ent agrarian ‘‘voices’’: (1) the moral view of farming as as Liberty Hyde Bailey were forced to balance their
a virtuous occupation; (2) the romantic view that farm- respect for rural independence with their belief that
ing offers independence and self-sufficiency; (3) the beneficial rural development could only occur through
psychological view that farming confers identity and a increased civic participation. By century’s end, agrari-
sense of place; (4) the more severe political view that ans such as Wendell Berry had come to view the ideal
farming shelters individuals from the corruption and of rugged individualism as little more than ‘‘a hubristic
vice of the industrial, urban world; and (5) the commu- quest for individual freedom and power’’ (Smith, 2003:
nitarian view that posits the farming community as a 135).
model for a positive social order. In keeping with these Other examples of divergence among agrarian
divergent threads of agrarianism, Montmarquet (1989) schools can be cited as well. Agrarian writers have dis-
goes even further back in time and across continents, agreed on the reverence for private property, the role of
distinguishing between at least six different schools of governmental regulation, and the importance of envi-
agrarian thought associated more with specific time ronmentalism (Smith, 2003). Though usually talked
periods and their socio-political contexts. Some of the about as a unified concept, agrarianism simply does not
more prominent of these schools have been the French fit neatly into a single coherent history or school of
Physiocrats of the eighteenth century, who posited that thought. As Montmarquet describes it, ‘‘the advocate of
agriculture, and not industry or commerce, was a large-scale, highly capitalized agriculture and the advo-
nation’s only source of true wealth; the Country Life cate of small, highly dispersed landholdings; both those
agrarians of the early twentieth century, who combined who eagerly embrace the application of science to agri-
a passion for soil conservation with a concern for the culture and those who are highly skeptical of anything
declining quality of life in America’s farming commu- but traditional ways – all of these and more – have
nities; the Southern Agrarians (also known as the Van- sought to march in some fashion or other under the
derbilt Agrarians), who argued vociferously in defense banner of agrarianism’’ (1989: viii). However, these
of an agrarian South; and the New Agrarians, the most divergent viewpoints need not serve as a hindrance to
recent batch of writers who attempt to merge the sus- the current discussion. Indeed, as I hope to show, they
tainable agriculture dialogue of recent decades with a will help to illustrate my basic point. Despite the vari-
spiritually-derived sense of land stewardship and an ety of arguments contained within the agrarian pan-
emphasis on reviving local economies. theon, there is a fundamental tenet which emerges time
None of these strains of agrarianism are mutually after time, and it will prove highly germane to the
exclusive, but there is a degree of ideological conflict discussion on farmland preservation.
between some of them. Views on the merits or demerits
of industrialization, for example, have changed over Going beyond economics
time. Jefferson seemed at times fearful of the effects of
industrializing forces on the American citizenry, at The tenor of the preservation debate, especially that of
other times ambivalent. Populists at the end of the the preservation critics, stands in marked contrast to a
nineteenth century, desiring an alliance between prole- foundational assertion by agrarians – that farming
tarians of all stripes, lumped farmers and industrial should be valued for more than its material contribution
workers together (Smith, 2003). The Southern Agrari- to society. Agriculture of course produces the food-
ans, meanwhile, reviled the forces of industrialism that stuffs that sustain life, but it also has a community
they saw encroaching from the North (e.g., Twelve value, a social value, even a moral value. As Theodore
Southerners, 1930; Cauley, 1935), and the work of Roosevelt wrote, ‘‘the growing of crops, though an
modern-day agrarians such as Wendell Berry is infused essential part, is only a part of country life’’ (1909: 6).
with ‘‘an overwhelming hostility to technological inno- Farming to the agrarians is not merely an occupation
vation’’ (Carlson, 2000: 190). but a way of life. When speaking of farming families
Similarly, agrarians through time have displayed in the countryside the emphasis is rarely on rural
mixed feelings about the idea of independence. The economics, but rather on rural culture in its entirety.
majority of agrarian works posit rugged individualism Taylor, for example, described farming as a ‘‘mode of
as perhaps the preeminent beneficial quality flowing life and living’’ (1925). In Bailey’s words, ‘‘Agriculture
from the farming life, taking their cue from Jefferson’s is not a technical profession or merely an industry, but
vision: ‘‘A society of independent farmers, most with a civilization’’ (1911: 63). Indeed, to the Vanderbilt
small holdings, almost wholly self-sufficient, would Agrarians it was precisely Southern civilization which
anchor a nation of happy individuals, beholden to no was on the line in the fight against becoming ‘‘only
one, and uncorrupted by their own greed or that of an an undistinguished replica of the usual industrial
Agrarian ideal – farmland preservation, utilitarianism and erosion 217
community’’ (Twelve Southerners, 1930: xi). Perhaps has an exceptional respect for tillage, and a feeling it is
responding to the reduced role that agriculture currently the original calling of the race’’ (Emerson, 1942: 749).
plays in popular culture, modern-day agrarians such as Bailey exemplified the early twentieth century agrarian
Logsdon draw a connection back to the cultural fabric ideal when he wrote, ‘‘It is the farmer’s rare privilege
of the nation: ‘‘Farming is very much a part of the to raise crops and rear animals. The sheer joy of the
whole societal structure, not just another job by which thing is itself a reward’’ (1927: 78). Among all agrarian
a person makes a living’’ (1993: 225). writers, this sentiment is perhaps most strongly
In light of modern trends in agriculture and the lar- expressed by those of the New Agrarian camp who are
ger national economy, agrarian writers from the early themselves farmers (see for example, Kline, 1990;
decades of the twentieth century prove to be remark- Logsdon, 2000).
ably prescient. The seminal Country Life Commission Second, farming communities provide an essential
report recognized in 1909 how capitalist economics sense of place and a social cohesion not found away
spurred the narrowed focus already gaining ground in from the farms. As Bailey wrote, ‘‘In the accelerating
agriculture: ‘‘So completely does the money purpose mobility of our civilization it is increasingly important
often control the motive that other purposes in farming that we have many anchoring places; and these anchor-
often remain dormant’’ (Bailey et al., 1909: 64). Elliott ing places are the farms’’ (1911: 17). While crowded
went even further in giving the tailoring of farm cities and the competitive urban workplace can be
decisions to a short-term economic outlook the air of alienating, the farming community fosters warm human
inevitability: companionship. Agrarian fiction such as that of Louis
Under conditions of free competition in agriculture, Bromfield, the famed twentieth-century patriarch of
the immediate economic interest of a majority of Malabar Farm in Ohio, repeatedly emphasized this
individual producers repeatedly comes in conflict sense of attachment to both the land and its human
with that of the Nation with respect to soil conserva- community.
tion. The individual farmer frequently finds it neces- Most importantly, the farming life breeds in its par-
sary to discount the future heavily. When the choice ticipants the hallowed virtues of humankind. Charac-
lies between an uncertain future and a very real pres- teristics such as patience, humility, and a hard work
ent, the latter usually wins out (1937: 18). ethic are inherent to the farming lifestyle. This is one
What these writers feared most was that a tendency of its qualities identified by the earliest writers on
towards reducing the occupation of farming to its eco- American agriculture. Thomas Jefferson unabashedly
nomic component would rob it of certain inherent vir- laid out this position when he wrote in 1781, ‘‘Those
tues it contained, and here we find the single idea that who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God,
lies at the core of agrarianism, the ‘‘unifying thread’’ … whose breasts He has made His peculiar deposit
that ties together all agrarian doctrines (Montmarquet, for substantial and genuine virtue… . Corruption of
1989: viii). Agrarians of all stripes and political dispo- morals in the mass of cultivators is a phenomenon of
sitions begin from the notion that, to borrow Montmar- which no age nor nation has furnished an example’’
quet’s pithy summary, ‘‘agriculture and those whose (quoted in McEwan, 1991: viii). John Taylor wrote
occupation involves agriculture are especially important only a few decades after Jefferson, ‘‘The capacity of
and valuable elements of society’’ (ibid.). Note the agriculture for affording luxury to the body, is not less
wording – ‘‘especially important and valuable.’’ Agri- conspicuous than its capacity for affording luxuries to
culture is more than just another means by which to the mind…. [I]t becomes the best architect of a com-
produce wealth or some material product; it is a plete man’’ (Taylor, 1813: 315–316). Montmarquet
uniquely significant part of any culture to which it (1989) points out how a number of religious writers
belongs. There are essentially three different versions of as far back as the Middle Ages championed agricul-
this tenet, three ways by which agriculture manifests its ture as a means of cultivating frugality, a strong work
‘‘specialness.’’ ethic, and virtue in the eyes of God, and a few reli-
First, it is a pleasing occupation in and of itself and gious agrarians of the twentieth century echoed the
thus conducive to the happiness of its practitioners. notion that the farm was ‘‘the finest place on earth for
Hence we have the Roman poet Virgil writing the fol- a family to prepare for heaven’’ (Ligutti, 1950: 6).
lowing lines: Not surprisingly, this same tone is echoed by New
… let not your land lie idle. Agrarians, whose work is suffused with moral princi-
What joy it is to sow all Thraces with vines ple: ‘‘good farming’’ has a direct link with the ‘‘public
And clothe in olive the slopes of vast Taburnus! good’’ (Worster, 1984). In fact, for Berry the question,
(Montmarquet, 1989: 12). ‘‘What is the best way to use the land?’’ is automati-
Even Ralph Waldo Emerson, not normally associated cally a question of ‘‘What is the best way to farm?’’
with agricultural discourse, proffered that ‘‘every man (2002a: 55).
218 Matthew J. Mariola
We must be careful here not to overemphasize this to one sets the decisive moment, within a matter of dec-
the point of parody. No agrarian writer would make the ades the turnaround was so complete that by the 1970s
claim that farming always leads to virtue, or that all the US Secretary of Agriculture could give the follow-
farmers are virtuous. The point is more that agriculture ing statement: ‘‘Farming isn’t a way of life, it’s a way
of necessity involves a number of elements that have to make a living’’ (quoted in Merrill, 1976: 284). The
historically been central to the human experience, such New Agrarians continue to write today and are even
as hard work, aesthetic beauty, living according to nat- gaining in popularity, but they are a tiny fraction of
ure’s rhythms, and relying on community ties. That is, agricultural observers, viewed by most – and not with-
agriculture provides a ‘‘privileged outlook upon funda- out reason – as antiquarian and quixotic. An agricul-
mental questions of human conduct’’ that is not neces- tural worldview characterized by agrarianism, with its
sarily embedded in other occupations (Thompson, concern for aesthetics, community, and moral norms
1990a: 3). It would be inaccurate to paint the entire that go well beyond economics, has by now been
agrarian school of thought with one brush. However, it almost completely eclipsed by the more narrowly
is within the realm of ethics that we find the one thread focused creed of economic utilitarianism.
applicable to the vast majority of agrarian writers. I have attempted to illustrate the degree to which this
There is a final key point to take away from this hegemonic framework has affected one particular seg-
brief overview, implied but not overtly stated through- ment of the agricultural dialogue, the debate over farm-
out the agrarian canon – as a philosophical outlook, land preservation. Impassioned arguments have been
agrarianism is concerned with the farmer first and fore- made both for and against the cause of preservation,
most. Issues of soil conservation, wealth creation, land but neither side deviates much from a basic economics-
tenure, or spirituality are of prime importance, but they oriented framework, which in turn rests upon a utilitar-
are approached in terms of their relationship to the ian approach to ethics. On one hand, this is not prob-
farmer, rather than the non-farming public. It is for this lematic. A regional director of the AFT, for example,
reason that agrarian sentiments today strike most as remains confident that land will be farmed once pre-
romanticized, unrealistic, and outdated. How widely served (D. Caneff, personal communication). That is,
can a philosophy resonate if it only applies to one fifti- we need not worry about the institution of farming; so
eth of the population? long as land is present, farming will continue. On the
other hand, such a simplistic focus exposes a number
Preservation for whom? The erosion of agrarian of the movement’s weak points, each of them linked to
discourse and the limits to utilitarianism the utilitarian ethic.
To begin with, a reliance on utilitarianism exempts
The close of the 1930s marked a turning point in the preservation movement from one of the most salient
American agriculture. As Hambidge wrote in 1940, that critiques of the industrial agriculture paradigm that has
year signaled ‘‘the end of a decade that [had] seen emerged from the sustainable agriculture movement in
more swift and far-reaching changes in agricultural recent decades. American agriculture has long held as
viewpoints and policy than perhaps any other decade in its paramount goal an unremitting increase in crop
the history of the United States’’ (p. 2). That is, shifts yields – to ‘‘grow two blades of grass where one grew
in the technical and demographic dimensions of agri- before.’’ Since the 1970s, this belief has been attacked
culture were being accompanied by shifts in the dis- by a wide variety of writers – from academics such as
course on agriculture. Though the writings of men such Thompson (1995) and Zimdahl (2002), to Nobel Prize
as Liberty Hyde Bailey and the Vanderbilt Agrarians winning economist Amartya Sen (1981), to more popu-
preceded him by only a few decades, M. L. Wilson lar writers such as Lappe´ and Collins (1977). It is
could safely declare in 1939 that ‘‘the Jeffersonian ideal widely acknowledged among contemporary observers
of an agrarian America definitely belongs to the past’’ of agriculture that the productionist mentality is, in fact,
(p. 31). a primary source of the present farm crisis, having pre-
Hilde and Thompson (2000) place the watershed cipitated calamitously low crop prices and the perpetua-
moment a decade later, with the 1948 publication of tion of a ‘‘treadmill of technology,’’ but preservationists
Griswold’s Farming and Democracy. Griswold cri- cannot even enter the debate. Indeed, they condone this
tiqued the long-assumed link between small farms and mentality by pegging the production of adequate sup-
a democratic social structure and, in so doing, ‘‘precipi- plies of food for a growing world population as the
tated several decades of agricultural and rural develop- number one reason for preserving farmland.
ment policy based on the belief that agriculture, like The environmentalist critique, too, is strangely
any other sector of the general economy, should be absent from the preservationist literature, except for
organized so as to maximize economic efficiency’’ the questionable insinuation that the continued exis-
(Hilde and Thompson, 2000: 18). Regardless of where tence of farmland is an invariable good for nature.